Categories

Meta

xml

H 0.10 increments). The money participants invested was then tripled in value

H 0.10 increments). The money participants invested was then tripled in value, and this new value of invested money was displayed on the computer screen. After a delay of 4? s, the amount of money that the trustee ostensibly decided to give back was displayed on the screen. To prevent development of strategies against certain game players, participants were informed that their specific partners would vary randomly across each trial. Upon completion, participants were probed for suspicion of the actual hypotheses, and thanked for their participation. Results The primary dependent variable was the amount of money participants `invested’ with the trustees, averaged across the 15 trials. Responses did not differ as a function of gender, ethnicity, or age in any of the following analyses (all P’s > 0.45). As predicted, participants who touched cold packs (M ? 0.46, s.d. ?0.18) later invested on the average of 20 less cents in each trial than those who had touched warm packs (M ? 0.66, s.d. ?0.16), F(1,28) ?10.52, P ?0.003. None of the participants suspected an influence of alpha-Amanitin clinical trials temperature on their investments. Cold packs (M ?4.33, s.d. ?1.40) were rated to be marginally less pleasant than warm packs (M ?5.33, s.d. ?1.40), F(1,28) ?3.84, P ?0.06, with the average pleasantness ratings falling between neutral and mildly pleasant for cold, and mildly pleasant and pleasant for warm packs. However, pleasantness ratings did not predict invested money, r ?0.10, P ?0.61. Instead, temperature predicted invested money independent of the pleasantness that it aroused. Analysis of covariance revealed that invested money still significantly differed by temperature manipulation after adjusting for pleasantness scores, F(1,27) ?10.20, P ?0.004. Discussion Recent physical temperature sensations should not, presumably, be a valid or relevant indication of the trustworthiness of others. Nonetheless, participants’ recent experience with cold vs warm temperatures did predict the outcomes of their MK-8742 supplier investment decisions in Study 1. This finding extends recent work demonstrating that brief experiences with cold or warm objects can influence people’s social judgments and prosocial behavior without their awareness (Williams and Bargh, 2008), by showing the effects of temperature primes in the economic decision-making domain. Furthermore, this work provides compelling support for the view that physicalSCAN (2011)temperature cues provide useful information regarding whether it is safe to trust others (cf. Fiske et al., 2007). However, the underlying mechanism of this physicalto-social-temperature effect remains unclear. Williams and Bargh (2008) suggested that the relationship between physical and psychological temperature might be due to a shared neural substrate (insula). Study 2 specifically examined the insula cortex as a candidate region that mediates the effect of temperature on trust processes. STUDY 2: TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON NEURAL ACTIVATION DURING TRUST-RELATED DECISIONS In Study 2, we investigated the role of insula in the temperature-trust effect, using a modified version of Study 1 adapted for an fMRI scanning environment. Participants completedbothcoldandwarmtemperaturetasks,eachfollowed by a trust game. The two temperature conditions were randomized in order and separated by a distracter task. We identified the brain regions within the insular-opercular cortex that mediated the effect of temperature priming. Methods Participants Twenty-three participants prov.H 0.10 increments). The money participants invested was then tripled in value, and this new value of invested money was displayed on the computer screen. After a delay of 4? s, the amount of money that the trustee ostensibly decided to give back was displayed on the screen. To prevent development of strategies against certain game players, participants were informed that their specific partners would vary randomly across each trial. Upon completion, participants were probed for suspicion of the actual hypotheses, and thanked for their participation. Results The primary dependent variable was the amount of money participants `invested’ with the trustees, averaged across the 15 trials. Responses did not differ as a function of gender, ethnicity, or age in any of the following analyses (all P’s > 0.45). As predicted, participants who touched cold packs (M ? 0.46, s.d. ?0.18) later invested on the average of 20 less cents in each trial than those who had touched warm packs (M ? 0.66, s.d. ?0.16), F(1,28) ?10.52, P ?0.003. None of the participants suspected an influence of temperature on their investments. Cold packs (M ?4.33, s.d. ?1.40) were rated to be marginally less pleasant than warm packs (M ?5.33, s.d. ?1.40), F(1,28) ?3.84, P ?0.06, with the average pleasantness ratings falling between neutral and mildly pleasant for cold, and mildly pleasant and pleasant for warm packs. However, pleasantness ratings did not predict invested money, r ?0.10, P ?0.61. Instead, temperature predicted invested money independent of the pleasantness that it aroused. Analysis of covariance revealed that invested money still significantly differed by temperature manipulation after adjusting for pleasantness scores, F(1,27) ?10.20, P ?0.004. Discussion Recent physical temperature sensations should not, presumably, be a valid or relevant indication of the trustworthiness of others. Nonetheless, participants’ recent experience with cold vs warm temperatures did predict the outcomes of their investment decisions in Study 1. This finding extends recent work demonstrating that brief experiences with cold or warm objects can influence people’s social judgments and prosocial behavior without their awareness (Williams and Bargh, 2008), by showing the effects of temperature primes in the economic decision-making domain. Furthermore, this work provides compelling support for the view that physicalSCAN (2011)temperature cues provide useful information regarding whether it is safe to trust others (cf. Fiske et al., 2007). However, the underlying mechanism of this physicalto-social-temperature effect remains unclear. Williams and Bargh (2008) suggested that the relationship between physical and psychological temperature might be due to a shared neural substrate (insula). Study 2 specifically examined the insula cortex as a candidate region that mediates the effect of temperature on trust processes. STUDY 2: TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON NEURAL ACTIVATION DURING TRUST-RELATED DECISIONS In Study 2, we investigated the role of insula in the temperature-trust effect, using a modified version of Study 1 adapted for an fMRI scanning environment. Participants completedbothcoldandwarmtemperaturetasks,eachfollowed by a trust game. The two temperature conditions were randomized in order and separated by a distracter task. We identified the brain regions within the insular-opercular cortex that mediated the effect of temperature priming. Methods Participants Twenty-three participants prov.